Just this morning Christopher Carfi pointed a most excellent post on the Blogher Blog entitled, “Manifesto: I am not a brand.” For those of you who have seen my live rants (aka speaking gigs), you know that one of the zinger one-liners I have delivered from time to time is: “Instead of a personal brand, why not just get a personality?” So I ran off to read Maureen Johnson‘s most excellent post (and wonderful rant – I so identify with her on the half-sized water bottles) right away.
I’ll make you go and read it yourself, but I do want to clip a portion or two of the manifesto that struck me as “OMG yes! WTF?!! Exactly!” moments:
We can, if we group together, fight off the weenuses and hosebags who want to turn the Internet into a giant commercial.
and
Make stuff for the Internet that matters to you, even if it seems stupid. Do it because it’s good and feels important.
Not only does her language pull on my heartstrings (totally using the word ‘weenuses’ from now on), but her general outlook. And the thing about her general outlook is that it is gorgeously utopic like mine. That neverending, undying even if the crap is kicked out of it faith in the core goodness of humankind and the possibility that things CAN be made better and more people just have to believe in it and get behind it and the world will transform into a better place for all of us…cause what we are doing right now just ain’t working. I mean, it looks like it’s working for some and then we are promised we can all have that if we’d just get off our lazy asses and work a little harder and step on a few people to get there. And when I say “that to which we are promised”, I mean some sort of luxurious life complete with high end handbags with big logos and more legroom on flights. But somebody has to sit in cattle class, eh?
Let me back up a bit here. I had a bit of a tipsy debate with a very smart person I know (who, in any case, one should never argue with sober OR tipsy, but I gave it a go) and afterwards he said the sweetest thing to me, which made me realize I was right all along:
“I enjoy your un-ending optimism..”
Because I argued that, much like Maureen, I believe there is a better way to approach the world. Why have we structured everything around ourselves to be about the almighty dollar? And why is the almighty dollar pretty consistently the reward for weenusism? For hustle? And stepping on other people? In the end, there is only so much of the almighty dollar to go around, so as I said earlier somebody has got to sit in cattle class and it isn’t always the lazy arses. Quite often it’s those people who are “making stuff that matters, even if it seems stupid because it feels good and important.” You know, people like artists, writers, teachers, inventors (before they sell to 3M), academics, activisits, non-profit workers, small business entrepreneurs, volunteers, musicians (before they sell to Disney), open source coders, the people who serve you your triple shot latte extra hot, students, dancers, actors, yoga instructors, mechanics, etc.
Not that those of us that sit in cattle class don’t want to make gobs of the almighty dollar, it’s just not at the top of the priority list. And thank god for that! Because if everyone was focused on the hustle of making the almighty dollar at any cost, this world would be a lonely cesspool none of us would be particularly fond of living in. We need the people who don’t prioritize the almighty dollar. Too bad we don’t value them.
I’ve been luckier than most. I’ve sat in the parts of the plane with lots of legroom, been served by an in-flight sommelier, laid flat to sleep and gotten the high quality free socks on the overseas flight. It’s an awesome feeling. Mostly because I know that it’s rare and tomorrow I’ll be flying in cattle class again and treated like a number. And I’m not saying that cattle class needs to go away or that we’d be living in a better world where we didn’t have to struggle at some level. But I do wonder why the hell having an in-flight sommelier is more important than making sure nobody in the world goes to bed hungry. And I wonder where the hell the venture capital is that will fund the projects “that matter, even if they seem stupid because they are good and important”.
I spent four years in SF Bay area watching all sorts of hustlers and weenuses get funded for their projects that didn’t really matter, were going to be the next Google and were certainly not good or important. Many of those projects are long gone along with the VC money. I also watched as really good people working on really great projects that were good and mattered struggled to find funding. Some are still working (on the side) on those projects. Some have been hired by companies like Google and Microsoft (and believed they can incorporate their good and important ideas into the big machines). Some have seen awesome community traction and found homes to support them (like <a href="http://www.coworking.com")Coworking and VRM). And though there is a fund for social enterprise in existence, it can’t handle all things that are good and important.
Our priorities are seriously off in this world. And I know that a good number of people agree with me. I would venture to say that there are enough people that agree with me that, as Maureen says, can “group together, fight off the weenuses and hosebags who want to turn the Internet into a giant commercial.” The voice is growing, we just need more examples. Look, I don’t have money. I’m still trying to figure out how to pay my rent next month. But there are people who do. And I believe strongly that social enterprise…or the “stuff that is good and important” is and can be profitable, too. It’s just more equitable, that’s all. And if it fails monetarily, well, at least there is a net gain for the world (not just a bunch of auctionable foosball tables and aeron chairs) just for the sheer existence of that project, which contributes to fighting off the lonely cesspool world we don’t want to live in.
Now…only if we could find that benefactor for our startup that is about being “good and important” while I’m at it.
When I read the manifesto yesterday – pointed out on the VRM list – i felt identified with it a lot, probably the only piece that sums up how i feel and what we need to do.
I don’t want the internet to turn into a big commercial and I’ve discarded several ideas because besides money i didn’t saw a bigger goal there. A project where we could leave some equity to society, something that could make a positive impact. Something that will help us collaborate more and get out that very kind and caring child (also fun and curious) we have inside us. It’s probably utopic optimism, but i want to make a change and yes stop the weenuses ….. I’m sure you will find a benefactor and probably I’ll do to, because i know there’s a lot of energy to do good that needs to be unleashed.
As humans with personalities, not brands (like cattle, ouch that must hurt) we can achieve anything.
This++.
What a timely post. I just returned from a conference in the Bay Area focusing on social justice in city planning, where I met a lot of community organizers and academics puzzling over many the same themes that you do in this post. The current system is failing rather spectacularly, for non-Internet special stuff. LA doesn’t have money to repair sewer mains (!) at this point! It’s not just mass numbers of individuals on hard times (though this is certainly huge and disturbing), it’s entire deeply-embedded ways of not just doing “business” but doing education, doing community, doing activism, etc. They’re pushing the envelope without the VC, but are sometimes doing it in a bit of a weenus way too.
What gets me is that there are some people who still think that a return to “simpler times” are solutions, without realizing that doing will bring back things we didn’t like from those times again. We have things that work and things that didn’t out of what’s gotten us into this mess. Let’s have the patience to pick through it all.
Wowsers and here here. Holy smokes I’m glad I found this post in my Reeder this morning. This gift that is New Media is changing the economy and the face of business. We have a once in a couple of centuries opportunity to disrupt some of the conventions in this world that don’t serve and propagate conventions that do. Thanks for reminding me of that this morning.
How on earth does someone taking time to lay out what matters to them, and what their guiding principles will be (which is what branding is, at its heart) cause someone else to go to bed hungry at night? That’s a huge leap.
Charity Water? That’s a heavily-branded organization. Blake Mycoskie and TOMS Shoes? Branded out the wazoo. Branding does not equal bad.
I commented on the other piece, too, and my point was it’s not the branding we’re so tired of. It’s more the really lousy marketing and selling tactics of some really lousy people. That’s the problem. That and, as you pointed out, the poor flow of money that results when people fall for those tactics.
Tara,
Huge fan of yours! I have mixed feelings about this. And I want a better society where people have jobs and no one goes hungry. But I have to believe in capitalism because as Winston Churchill put it “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” No one has found a better system that lifts more people up, than brings people down. It’s the very reason why so many people seek out this country as a land of opportunity. We aren’t perfect, but there is so much potential that doesn’t exist anywhere else. If it weren’t so, people wouldn’t be trying so hard to get in.
Great ideas and great products create jobs because there is supply and demand. Many times an idea may seem like a good one, but the reality is, if there is no demand for “good and important ideas”, the consumer, me and you, have made that determination. No demand = bad idea.
So then the question arises – why should you and I pay for ideas that seem to be good and important, when the populace, through their vote (purchase or non-purchase decision) have deemed the product or idea as not good and/or not important.
I think in general – we all have to have a kind, giving and generous spirit and not rely on governments to do that for us. We all need to reach into the depths of our beings and be more giving. You talk about giving in “The Whuffie Factor”. I’m a huge believer in that and I put my money where my mouth is. I volunteer my time regularly and give away my money to charitable organizations monthly. If everyone took it upon themselves to recognize their blessings and GIVE because they are able – we would have that better society you’re speaking of.
@Lauren Hmmmm…I’m definitely not suggesting socialism here. What I *am* suggesting is that people ‘value’ (purchase, as you put it) odd things.
Just because someone will purchase a ringtone but then pirate music of an indie musician, doesn’t mean that paid for product (the ringtone) is any more good or important than the unpaid for product. CEOs of Goldman Sachs get multi-million dollar bonuses, is their work any more good and important than a CEO of, say, Greenpeace, who will get paid under $100k/year? A football player will make multi-millions a year in a deal, but even the most talented dancers won’t ever bring home much more than $150k/year…both have similarly short careers, both entertain. Sure football attracts more people who want to pay more for games (and games are often MORE expensive than the ballet or dance events), but is it because football is more valuable than dancing? Maybe it’s marketed differently? But I see no difference in its basic value. Yet, we value football players higher (according to the ‘vote through purchase’ model).
I’m not talking about a socialist system. And I would be concerned to follow the advice of Churchill on Capitalism as he probably established the majority of the British social welfare systems…a very anti-capitalist move in today’s American discourse. ;) But either way, I *am* talking about the fact that I don’t think what we value and *how* we value it in today’s world is completely fabricated. When human life is valued less than the acquisition of more wealth, I worry. And I see more and more of this. Thankfully there are still companies that believe that community comes first (the Odwalla’s of the world, for instance), but when you see so many companies who put their bottom line first at the expense of human beings (the BP’s, for instance) being rewarded (name the investment firm, for instance), I don’t hold American capitalism up in such high esteem.
And for what it’s worth, people seek out *parts* of America to immigrate to, not America itself (i.e. Silicon Valley, New York, etc.) and even that is in a decline (and has been for a couple of years now):
http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/The-Daily-Reckoning/2010/0501/As-illegal-immigration-falls-is-America-in-decline
The US isn’t the same ‘land of opportunity’ that it once was and there are actually policy changes in the works to try and attract high skilled workers again (a startup visa is in process as well as talk of increasing limits on H1Bs) because there is a world migration rather than all eyes toward the US. But now I am going off in another direction altogether.
Tara – Lol…I think we agree more than we disagree. I’m glad you’re not advocating socialism. The bottom line, however, is the bottom line. :)
The CEO’s of enormous corporations make millions because their company’s are earning gazillions… and that gets fed to the shareholder – you, me, lots of people’s 401k plans, oh, and the media. It boils down to money all the time.
With regard to your example of professional athletes versus dancers… it’s advertising revenue – again the almighty dollar – the potential money/sales/profit that will result. Televised football games will obviously attract a much larger audience than say a play in NY. So Nike is going to put their shoe on Tiger Woods and pay him millions because they know that the advertising exposure of seeing Nike on him will result in profits that far outweigh the ridiculous sum they pay him to wear their shoes. They don’t care that Tiger is a dirt-bag… they just care about their shoes being displayed, resulting profits from people wanting the same shoes that Tiger wears, and the resulting earnings of Nike.
In terms of “goodness” – good products/important jobs have nothing to do with one another. There are plenty of dirt-bags out there earning boatloads of money for their shareholders – and ultimately – the consumer, me and you decide if we are going to buy what they’re selling.
Philanthropy doesn’t “pay dividends” – so it’s value to society is less. Simply put, it’s not a profit center. Profit centers create jobs and make the world go round. It’s sad, but true… but I still contend that it’s each of our own personal responsibility to support these important works (and I do with my own money and my own sweat).
I applaud companies like Odwalla. I think it’s awesome that they have values and convictions and ethics and integrity. It’s all very admirable, and again, I will vote with my dollar and buy their product. I personally am against animal testing, so I vote with my dollar and I don’t purchase products from Proctor & Gamble. They’re a huge company, but in my mind, no ethical standard when it comes to testing their products and therefore, I choose not to buy their product or invest in P&G.
Lively conversation – I enjoyed this!
@Lauren
Well…that may be “the way it is” but I don’t think it is the way it should be. Period. We will have to agree to disagree.
I don’t disagree. Like I said – I think we agree that it shouldn’t be that way. I just offer up the reason why it is that way. Sad as it may be.
Tara – enjoyed the post and really enjoyed the conversation in the comments. I have to join in because of your last comment. Quite frankly in my world, there is no ‘should’. Each of us has the right to choose what we value. We ‘vote’ with our scarce resources (time and money usually) on what we value. If we want a different world, then we create it – one person at a time. Ourselves. By voting differently with those resources. Not by trying to convert others but by being authentic and living our values each day. It is not up to me to judge whether or not you are living ‘right’. Nor do I judge the BP executives. They are not evil – they happen to be living their values.
That one bothers me a lot. Until each of choose to give up a dependency on oil – then we have to expect companies to choose to explore for more oil Such is life. I personally have moved from driving 24,000 km a year to driving under 5,000. I have made a commitment to taking fewer trips that involved travel. Those are my choices because I do not want disasters like the current one recurring. It is not up to me to impose this on others.
Please note that I am not saying that anyone is not authentic – I am just tired of being told what I should value or should do and that “you” (meaning me) needs to change what I value and that the way things are is ‘wrong’. They are not wrong or right – they just are.
@Karen
There were a couple of great TED Talks that covered this subject:
http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sandel_the_lost_art_of_democratic_debate.html
“There is a tendency to think that if we engage too directly with moral questions in politics, that’s a recipe for disagreement, and for that matter, a recipe for intolerance and coercion. So better to shy away from, to ignore, the moral and the religious convictions that people bring to civic life. It seems to me that our discussion reflects the opposite, that a better way to mutual respect is to engage directly with the moral convictions citizens bring to public life, rather than to require that people leave their deepest moral convictions outside politics before they enter.”
and
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html
Harris is a scientist who DOES believe there is a right and wrong (or at least a continuum between right and wrong) that can be solved, not by religious morality, but by science.
“And just admitting this — just admitting that there are right and wrong answers to the question of how humans flourish — will change the way we talk about morality, and will change our expectations of human cooperation in the future.”
Are BP Executives evil? Well, they are putting the interests of their company ahead of human and animal life…ahead of the environment…ahead of public health…I consider that evil. Very evil. If that is them living their values, their values are evil IMO. And I have no problem “pushing” my values on them. (p.s. I got rid of my car in 2002 and have lived in walkable neighborhoods ever since, been a transit advocate – organized TransitCamps and such – and supported shared resources like ZipCar, City Carshare, BIXI -bike sharing- and been healthier because I walk everywhere, even in -20C weather)
I don’t think tolerance of certain types of values that lead us to ruining the planet for future generations, killing of entire species and putting human life at a lower value than an executives bonus is really optimal for the future of humankind. So no, I am not tolerant and I am definitely okay with fighting for my brand of values that respects humans, the environment and everything that leads to the earth flourishing.
Making a living off a computer can be hard at first however Its the people that be persistant to it that achieve results.
Hey Tara,
I love this part of your post “the reward for weenusism”. I agree with you – Through my journey to become a successful full-time blogger, it’s hard to “keep it real” especially when I am trying to make a living online. However, I have managed to stick my moral belief of – Don’t sell someone something that you wouldn’t buy yourself – I hope that I can stick to my guns on this one. I like the blog here.
Thanks,
Brian M. Connole
i-Blogger and The HCG Diet 411 Blog
@Tara “Are BP Executives evil? Well, they are putting the interests of their company ahead of human and animal lifeâ�¦ahead of the environmentâ�¦ahead of public healthâ�¦I consider that evil.”
I love what you are saying. I also enjoyed Sam Harris’s TEDtalk. So often people frame the issues in terms that place capitalism vs. socialism, qualifying their dislike of capitalism by comparing it to socialism. I think this is a false dichotomy. Each is a game with it’s own set of rules, and as we know, the rules change and are dependent upon time and place. The expression of capitalism in the US today is different than it was 50 years ago. We are not talking about objective terms here.
We can support capitalism 2.0 and change some rules to make it more supportive of human flourishing. (I believe the same for socialism, and better yet, I’d like to see a hybrid, or something else entirely)
However most importantly we the people need to change our expectations of what’s reasonable to desire. We don’t have to be so damn cynical, as in, it’s just human nature to be greedy and heartless. As so much science is finding, humans are social beings who flourish together. Civil unrest comes from disparity between rich and poor. Other’s unhappiness makes us unhappy–even when we don’t realize it.